Saint Louis University v. Meyer

Filing 69

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 67 Response to Motion, 66 Response to Motion,, 65 Response to Motion, 64 Response in Opposition to Motion,, 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment AS TO NO MONETARY DAMAGES DUE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment AS TO COUNTS I-VI OF THE COMPLAINT by Defendant Avis Meyer. (Gill, Brian)

Download PDF
Saint Louis University v. Meyer Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, a Missouri benevolent corporation, Plaintiff, AVIS MEYER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:07CV1733 CEJ CONSENTED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLIES COMES NOW Defendant Avis Meyer (hereinafter "Meyer"), by and through its counsel, and without objection from Plaintiff, moves this Honorable Court for an Extension of Time of one week for Defendant to file his Replies in support of Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment. In support of this Motion, the parties state as follows: 1. 2. Defendant filed its Motions for Summary Judgment on September 12, 2008. Plaintiff filed its Responses to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment on October 21, 2008. 3. 2008. 4. To more fully formulate the respective Replies in support of Defendant's Motions Under the current Orders of the Court, Defendant's Replies are due October 31, for Summary Judgment and due to the press of business, Defendant respectfully requests a one (1) week extension of time, to file its papers. 5. Counsel for Defendant communicated with counsel for Plaintiff on this date and Plaintiff does not object to this request. Dockets.Justia.com 6. It is not believed that the requested brief extension will adversely affect any other deadlines in this case, including the January 20, 2009 trial date. 7. Defendant therefore requests that the Court further amend the scheduling order to extend the deadline for filing Defendant's Replies in support of his Motions for Summary Judgment to November 7, 2008. 8. Defendant does not make the instant Motion for any improper purpose or to delay these proceedings. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to grant its Motion to extend the time for filing Defendant's replies in support of Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, POLSTER, LIEDER, WOODRUFF & LUCCHESI, L.C. By: Brian J. Gill Nelson Nolte, #111,801 Brian J. Gill, MoBar. #57,324 12412 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131-3615 (314) 238-2400 (314) 238-2401 (fax) E-mail: bgill@patpro.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 30, 2008, the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court's electronic filing system upon the following: Frank B. Janoski, #3480 Bridget Hoy, #109375 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, L.C. 500 North Broadway, Suite 2000 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 T (314) 444-7600 F (314) 241-6056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF s/ Brian J. Gill 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?